Another giant step forward in the Vatican's fight to stop abuse—and demand accountability
Just yesterday I made the observation that Pope Francis has ratcheted up the intensity of the drive against clerical abuse, by authorizing the arrest and prosecution of former papal nuncio Josef Wesolowski. Today, with the removal of Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano, the ratchet clicked several more steps.
In the Wesolowski case, the Vatican moved against a prelate who was himself accused of sexual abuse. Other bishops have been removed for personal misconduct in the past decade, although the severity of the disciplinary action against Wesolowski—laicization followed by criminal prosecution—is unprecedented.
But in the case of Bishop Livieres, there is (as far as I know) no charge that the bishop himself engaged in sexual misconduct. The complaint is that he harbored and even promoted a priest whose past was littered with complaints of abuse.
Father Carlos Urrutigoity, the priest at the center of this drama, is a remarkable character. Ambitious, energetic, and unflinching in his doctrinal orthodoxy, he has persuaded many good Catholics to pour their financial support into his projects. (In all those respects, his story is like a sad replay of the scandal created by Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ.) The Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, had warned that Father Urrotigoity was a danger to children. Bishop Livieres chose to ignore that warning.
In other respects, Bishop Livieres appeared to be a successful pastor of souls; he had an admirable record for drawing young men into the priesthood and gaining new members for the Catholic Church. By removing him, Pope Francis has demonstrated a real “zero tolerance” policy. The message from Rome is loud and clear: It doesn’t matter what else you do; if you don’t protect children from abuse, you’re out.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: brehany4valloire4245 -
Mar. 21, 2017 12:27 PM ET USA
Jimmy Breslin once called William Randolph Hearst's JOURNAL AMERICAN "a paper where you couldn’t believe the weather report"!
Posted by: hartwood01 -
Mar. 18, 2017 1:24 AM ET USA
What has happened in recent years in my Southern city is when we have had severe flooding because of heavy rain,it was too late to evacuate. The authorities were criticized for not anticipating this disaster. So when they decided to evacuate in anticipation of flooding,and no flooding occurring,they were castigated again. Having endured great inconvenience and loss of life several times in the same year,our citizens are now less apt to feel that conspiracies are afoot when flood season arrives
Posted by: feedback -
Mar. 16, 2017 11:42 PM ET USA
Very strange indeed. So from now on, should you expect forecasts exaggerated "for your own good"? Will all forecasts be fake, or only select ones? Which ones will be fake, and who decides and how? What's the point of this? What if there is real severe weather coming and nobody believes the forecast anymore?
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Mar. 16, 2017 10:31 AM ET USA
Phil, why does this surprise you? The climate forecasters et al. have been doing the same for years. For example, in the 1980s my professors brought in millions in research funding because of their claim that acid rain damaged trees. A tree expert came for a seminar and told us that trees thrive in acid rain. Utter silence from the professors. In our atmospheric chemistry course we calculated the temperature rise if all the earth's biomass were burned. If I recall correctly, it was 2 degrees C.
Posted by: bruno.cicconi7491 -
Sep. 28, 2014 12:44 AM ET USA
Yes. I'm not the Pope but who am I to judge is the only thing I can say. And in such muddy matters I ought to say it gladly!!
Posted by: LAR -
Sep. 26, 2014 5:03 PM ET USA
If it is a "giant step" then why was Cardinal Godfried Danneels personally appointed by Pope Francis to the Synod? The selection is remarkable because Danneels was caught on tape in 2010 urging a victim who had been sexually abused by a bishop-friend of Danneels, to be silent.
Posted by: 1Jn416 -
Sep. 26, 2014 2:06 PM ET USA
Indeed, Bruno. The comments from the Holy See suggest that St. Charles Borromeo would not be tolerated as a bishop today, since the disruption this bishop created appears (from what one can find online) to be that he was calling his fellow bishops to greater fidelity to the faith. This is somewhat concerning. But the case is obviously quite complex, especially with the Urrutigoity angle. Who am I to judge?
Posted by: bruno.cicconi7491 -
Sep. 26, 2014 7:09 AM ET USA
But how come the Vatican itself has said that the removal was not related to the protection of Urrutigoity - whom, Livieres claim, was accepted in response to Benedict XVI's request?